Rights, Duties and Wrongs under Jurisprudence

Introduction

In society, the purpose of law is to regulate. Regulation is required to safeguard human interests. When a human interest is recognised by the law, it becomes a right. Such a right is protected and enforced by the law. Every right is accompanied by a corresponding responsibility. This particular concept of rights and duties is one of the most hotly debated topics in legal theory. Along with the two, a third concept wrongness has emerged. These three concepts are regarded by many theorists as the very foundation of law. Let’s go over each of the three concepts and see how they relate.

Salmond claims that:

A legal right is a “interest that the rule of law protects and recognises.” It is a vested interest that has a duty to fulfil, and failing to do so is wrong.”

Gray claims that:

A legal right is defined as “the power that a man has to cause a person or persons to do or refrain from doing a certain act or acts insofar as that power arises from society imposing a legal duty on the person or persons.” According to him, the “right” is “not the interest itself, but the means to enjoy the secured interest.”

“Legal rights in the strict sense are correlatives of legal duties, and legal rights are defined as the interests which the law protects by imposing duties on other persons,” the Supreme Court stated in the case of State of Rajasthan vs Union of India[1]. However, in the strictest sense, a legal right is immunity from another’s legal power. Immunity is not the same as submission.”

Rights

A right, according to Salmond, is something that arises in response to a duty. A person owes a duty to them. Similarly, the person who is owed a duty has a right to sue the person who owes the duty. “A right is an interest recognized and protected by a rule of right,” Salmond defines the term. It is any interest, the preservation of which is a duty and the neglect of which is wrong.” A right, according to Holland, is “a capacity residing in one man of controlling the actions of others with the consent and assistance of the State.” “A legal right is that power a man has to make a person or persons do or refrain from doing a certain act or acts, so far as the power arises from society imposing a legal duty upon a person or persons,” according to Gray. “A Right is a legally protected interest,” says Ihering.

Every man has his own set of priorities. A right is defined as a set of interests that are recognised by law. The concept of right aids in determining whether or not an action is wrong. Every type of wrong violates the victim’s interest in some way[2]. Only if the interest that has been violated is recognised by law as a right does an act become illegal in the eyes of the law.

Rights, like wrongs and responsibilities, are divided into two categories: moral or natural rights and legal rights.

Moral Rights

Moral rights, also known as natural rights, refer to the interest that is violated by a moral wrong and for which a moral duty exists. The concept of natural rights was strongly criticised by Jeremy Bentham. He has narrowed the definition of rights to only those interests that are recognised by law. Natural rights, he claims, are a type of “fictions” and “metaphors” that have occupied a central position in several legal texts. In response to this criticism, Salmond has invoked the concepts of law and morality. He claims that the assertion of natural rights never established the school of natural law. Simply put, there are certain beliefs or morals about how men should act, which we refer to as moral or natural duties. Moral or natural rights correspond to this. The manner in which such obligations and rights are described distinguishes law from morality. It should not lead us to believe that such rights and responsibilities do not exist.

Legal Rights

 The law recognises and protects a person’s specific interests. These are referred to as legal rights. It would be a legal wrong to violate these interests, and it would be a legal duty to respond to them. One of the most important characteristics of a legal right, according to Salmond, is that it is not only protected but also recognised by the law. The vinculum juris, or bond of the legal obligation between the parties, can be used to determine the legal recognition of a right. To support his claim, he uses the examples of animal rights and children’s rights. He claims that animal protection laws exist, but that they cannot be considered legal rights. They are animal rights that are simply protected by law. Assume that if a man is cruel to his dog, the dog is unable to bring legal action against him. Their legal relationship will remain unchanged. When a parent is cruel to his child, on the other hand, the child can file a lawsuit to protect his or her interest or right[3]. He went on to say that animal protection laws were enacted in their honour, not in recognition of them. As a result, he clarified the crucial distinction between interest protection and recognition.

Legal Rights’ Essential Elements

According to Salmond, there are five basic requirements that must be met:

1. The person of inheritance/subject of right: He is the person who is the right’s owner. He is the object of legal protection. A person of inheritance is someone like this. 
2. The person who is the subject of the duty/the person who is the subject of the incident: It is the responsibility of another person or persons to respect and recognise the person’s right. A person of incidence is someone who has a legal obligation. 
3.  Legal Right’s Contents or Subject Matter: The subject matter of a legal right is a crucial component. It is concerned with the legal right’s subject matter. It has to do with doing something or refraining from doing something, or forbearance. It obligates the person to abstain or act in the best interests of the person who has a legal right.
4. The legal right’s object: The legal right’s object is the thing or thing over which the legal right is exercised. For example, A spends Rs 1,000,000 on a car. The car is the subject in this case.
5. The process by which the legal right is vested or conferred on the person is referred to as the title of the legal right. It is a series of events that result in the acquisition of a right from its previous owner.

Duties

Simply put, a duty is an action that is expected to be performed; otherwise, it is considered a wrong. However, there is a distinction to be made between a duty and an act. A duty within a duty may exist, and failure to perform it will result in a breach of the primary duty. A good example of this is the obligation to respect a state’s national flag in order to avoid violating the nation’s duty of respect. However, this is not the case when it comes to an act. A person is assigned a duty “by virtue of his position or station,” according to Salmond. This distinguishes a duty from an obligation, as an obligation is an action that one voluntarily undertakes. ]Salmond continues, “Only a positive act can be called a duty.” Certain responsibilities, such as the duty not to reveal certain information, may appear to be negative at first glance. It is, however, a positive act of keeping a secret. As a result, it’s just a pejorative way of describing a positive action.

Kinds of Duties

Duties, like wrongs, are divided into two categories: moral and legal. There is, however, a complex relationship and differentiation between the two, which Salmond explains through a series of examples. To explain the meaning of an exclusively legal duty, he uses the example of England’s law against adulteration. In England, he claims, there is a legal obligation not to sell adulterated food. This obligation applies regardless of whether or not the person is aware of the situation or is negligent[4]. As a result, even if a person sells adulterated food unintentionally or negligently, he has violated this duty. He claims that the duty is solely legal in the sense that it is free of questions of knowledge and negligence. He then goes on to say that it is one’s responsibility not to have offensive curiosity about one’s neighbor. He claims that such a duty is not legally recognised and thus is a moral obligation. He goes on to say that there may be legal as well as moral obligations, such as the duty not to steal.

Wrongs

The terms “wrong” and “right” are often used interchangeably. A wrong, according to Salmond, is an act that is done incorrectly. Such behaviour is “incompatible with the rule of law and justice.” The word injury comes from the Latin word injuria, which means “that which is contrary to justice.” As a result, the term “injury” is essentially synonymous with “wrong.” However, in modern usage, it refers to the harm caused by a legally wrongful act to either party in a legal dispute.

Moral Wrongs

Moral wrongs and legal wrongs are the two main types of wrongs. A moral wrong, also known as a natural wrong, is an act that violates the rule of natural justice. It is made up of acts that are considered morally wrong. For example, in a society that values elder respect, any act that is disrespectful to elders may be considered a wrongful act. This would be considered a moral blunder. There is no legal recourse for harm caused by a moral blunder.

Legal Wrongs

 A legal wrong could or could not be a moral wrong. A legal wrong is an act that is either contrary to justice as defined by a state’s legal system or infringes on any of the rights guaranteed by law. A wrong can be recognised as a legal wrong in a number of ways. The traditional method is to penalise the act in order to declare it legally wrongful. Modern thinkers, on the other hand, argue that the essence of a legal wrong is the declaration of the act as a wrong by law, rather than the punishment or sanction imposed by law. As a result, other means and methods of recognising an act as a legal wrong have emerged. For damage caused by a legal error, there is a legal remedy. A moral wrong could or could not be a legal wrong.

The Relationship of Rights, Duties, and Wrongs

When you look at the definitions and meanings of right, duty, and wrong, it’s clear that they’re all linked together. When it comes to the relationship between rights and duties and wrongs, wrong is either the cause of claiming a right or the result of failure to perform a duty. As a result, there can be no wrong without duty, and there can also be no wrong without someone who has been wronged, i.e., someone who has the right to claim it. The relationship between rights and responsibilities has sparked a lot of debate. There are primarily two schools of thought in this area. One believes that rights and responsibilities are inextricably linked and that one cannot exist without the other. According to the second school of thought, which is led by Austin, a right may have a corresponding duty, but a duty does not always have a corresponding right.

Conclusion

Any legal system must include the concepts of rights, duties, and wrongs. They are the tools that law uses to achieve its primary goal of safeguarding and regulating an individual’s interests. Legal rights are the most fundamental concept among the three of them. Any legal system, particularly a democratic one, must include rights. Both municipal and international law contain extensive legislation on rights. Due to the strong correlation between all three concepts, a clear understanding of the concepts of wrongs and duties is required to better understand the meaning and nature of rights. Both rights and responsibilities coexist. According to Salmond, “no right exists without a corresponding duty.” Every person’s duty must be owed to someone in whose hands the right is vested, and every right must be owed to someone in whose hands a duty is imposed.

---

References:

[1] State of Rajasthan vs Union of India 1978 SCR (1)1

[2] http://www.desikanoon.co.in/2012/08/jurisprudence-notes-legal-concepts.html

[3] D. Mahajan, Jurisprudence and Legal Theory, Eastern, Lucknow M.D.A. Freeman (ed).

[4] Fitzgerald, P.J., ‘Salmond on Jurisprudence’, Twelfth Edition, N.M. Tripathi Pvt. Ltd., 1999.